Quote:
Originally Posted by ijusluvit
We can debate endlessly, but we civilians don't know what the real military options are.
Realistically, might precision strikes by the Israelis effectively delay the Iranian production of nuclear bombs for longer than a few years?
What are the percentage chances that a quick offensive could be successful?
Might the consequences of such actions be 'tolerable', especially if other nations, (read US), were prepared to intercept Iranian retaliatory missiles? By 'tolerable' I mean the amount of damage incurred by Iranian retaliation and the possibility that additional retaliatory actions would be initiated by other nations or groups in support of Iran.
The only thing we really do know is that the Middle East, and, in fact, the world will be at far greater risk on the day Iran can use a nuclear weapon.
|
This is going to be one of those rare cases where I agree with your entire thought. It can't be helped but to be confused on what to think about this situation pertaining to the thought of a "nuclear Iran".
We've commitments to our ally Israel, but what's the best course, and what are the ramifications of the ultimate decision. Are we projecting weakness or strength? Are we exhibiting a national resolve or or are we being perceived as bumbling? How are we to know with our limited information how our country should handle this?
But, as you aptly point out, a nuclear Iran is in no one's interest; well except Iran of course.
We must stand by Israel; that is clear to me. President Obama is starting to say some things now that sound good. His history of dealing with Israel doesn't give me confidence, though.
It's a very confusing problem, and a wrong answer can be disastrous.